Figures

(A) SAR‐TAWSS and (B) SAR‐OSI (n = 22 for ~1 year, n = 25 for ~5 years, and n = 22 for ~10 years postoperatively in the LIMA group; and n = 21 for ~1 year, n = 21 for ~5 years, and n = 21 for ~10 years postoperatively in the SVG group) in the entire graft except for the anastomotic regions. The histograms of light and dark textures refer to the mean values of the parameters averaged over patients in LIMA and SVG groups, respectively, at various postoperative times, where error bars refer to the SDs of the parameters and P‐value < 0.05 indicates statistical difference between LIMA and SVG groups.

(A–B) plot of Dfit along normalized graft centerline in LIMA (A: n = 22 for ~1 year, n = 25 for ~5 years, and n = 22 for ~10 years postoperatively) and SVG (B: n = 21 for ~1 year, n = 21 for ~5 years, and n = 21 for ~10 years postoperatively) groups; (C‐D) plot of Dfit along normalized anastomotic centerline in LIMA (C: n = 22 for ~1 year, n = 25 for ~5 years, and n = 22 for ~10 years postoperatively) and SVG (D: n = 21 for ~1 year, n = 21 for ~5 years, and n = 21 for ~10 years postoperatively) groups, where error bars refer to the SDs of Dfit at various postoperative times. The centerlines were normalized by the accumulative length from A1 to A10 in Figure 1B and C.

(A) SAR‐TAWSS, (B) SAR‐OSI, and (C) SAR‐TAWSSG (n = 22 for ~1 year, n = 25 for ~5 years, and n = 22 for ~10 years postoperatively in the LIMA group; and n = 21 for ~1 year, n = 21 for ~5 years, and n = 21 for ~10 years postoperatively in the SVG group) at the anastomosis between the graft and coronary arteries. The histograms of light and dark textures refer to the mean values of the parameters averaged over patients in LIMA and SVG groups, respectively, at various postoperative times, where error bars refer to the SDs of the parameters and P‐value < 0.05 indicates statistical difference between LIMA and SVG groups.

(A–D) 3D geometric model of LIMA graft (A) and SVG (B) and TAWSS (Unit: Dynes∙cm−2) in LIMA graft (C) and SVG (D) of two representative patients, who underwent CTA for ~1 year after surgical revascularization; (E–H) 3D geometric model and TAWSS (Unit: Dynes∙cm−2) in LIMA graft and SVG of two representative patients, who underwent CTA for ~5 year after surgical revascularization; (I–L) 3D geometric model and TAWSS (Unit: Dynes∙cm−2) in LIMA graft and SVG of two representative patients, who underwent CTA for ~10 year after surgical revascularization.

Tables

Table 2.Morphometric and hemodynamic parameters in patients of LIMA and SVG groups

Postoperative time (y)

~1

~5

~10

Vessel Groups

LIMA

SVG

LIMA

SVG

LIMA

SVG

Morphometric parameters

Dinlet

2.3 ± 0.6

3.3 ± 0.9

2.5 ± 0.7

2.7 ± 0.7

2.4 ± 0.8

2.6 ± 0.8

Dmean

3.2 ± 0.4

4.5 ± 0.6

3.2 ± 0.4

4.1 ± 0.6

3.1 ± 0.5

3.7 ± 0.7

0.9 ± 0.1

0.9 ± 0.1

0.9 ± 0.1

0.8 ± 0.1

0.9 ± 0.1

0.8 ± 0.1

Danas

2.4 ± 0.7

4.0 ± 0.8

2.5 ± 0.6

3.4 ± 0.6

2.5 ± 0.6

3.1 ± 0.7

Coronary area stenosis (%)

85 ± 2

84 ± 8

86 ± 5

87 ± 5

90 ± 3

89 ± 7

~1 y versus ~5 y

~5 y versus ~10 y

~10 y versus ~1 y

A comparison of hemodynamic parameters in the graft between different postoperative time

P‐value (time vs. time)

SAR‐TAWSS

0.42

<0.05

0.44

<0.05

0.15

<0.05

SAR‐OSI

0.63

0.78

0.77

0.07

0.40

0.05

A comparison of hemodynamic parameters in the anastomosis between different postoperative time

P‐value (time vs. time)

SAR‐TAWSS

<0.05

<0.05

0.14

<0.05

<0.05

<0.05

SAR‐OSI

0.69

0.99

0.33

0.78

0.36

0.48

SAR‐TAWSSG

0.63

<0.05

0.07

0.09

<0.05

0.95

Table 1.Demographics of the study population in LIMA grafts and SVGs at different postoperative times

Parameters

LIMA group

SVG group

Postoperative time (y)

~1

~5

~10

~1

~5

~10

Patient number

22

25

22

21

21

21

Age (y)

68 ± 7

65 ± 7

72 ± 6

67 ± 8

68 ± 6

70 ± 7

Male (%)

86

76

77

86

57

76

BMI, kg/m2

24 ± 1.5

24 ± 2.6

25 ± 2.0

25 ± 2.2

24 ± 2.5

25 ± 1.9

Demographics of the study population before surgical revascularization